“The Megaro Criminal Law Library,” a public service of
Criminal Defense Lawyer Patrick Megaro, now updated with recent articles and
videos

“The Megaro Criminal Law Library” is available
online. Recently, the library has been updated with articles and videos,
including an instructional series.

“The Megaro Criminal Law Library” is a public
service created by criminal defense lawyer Patrick Megaro. Mr. Megaro is a
Criminal Defense Attorney with offices in Orlando, Florida. The library
contains all of Mr. Megaro’s Criminal Law articles and videos. There is also a
“search” feature that allows users to search the videos and articles by
keyword. The Library is organized by different sections, Videos, Articles, News
and an Archive.

Patrick Megaro is providing all this
information as a public service, free of charge. “I have focused on this area
of law for more than 20 years, and at this stage in my life and experience, I
would like to share with the public, law students, and my peers all the
knowledge I have acquired. I sincerely hope that some of my esteemed colleagues
in the profession will find the materials useful for their own law practice.” Mr.
Megaro explains the idea of the Library. He started out with a Blog with his
written articles and commentary, but eventually it became too unwieldy and
difficult to search. He therefore decided to organize all of the information
more efficiently, and use an index service so that users can search the
information by keyword.

The newest addition to the Library is Mr.
Megaro’s “instructional series.” In his first article in his instructional
series, veteran criminal defense attorney Patrick Michael Megaro comments on
Martin v. State, an appellate decision from the Second District Court of Appeal
of Florida, dealing with recent changes to Florida’s self-defense laws. Florida
legislature’s amendment to section 776.032 marks an important shift in self-defense
laws in the state of Florida.As the
Martin court explained “[t]he Florida Legislature's amendment to section
776.032 added the following provision: (4) In a criminal prosecution, once a
prima facie claim of self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution has been
raised by the defendant at a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof by
clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity
from criminal prosecution provided in subsection (1).”The Martin court went on to explain that “as
it now stands, the State bears the burden of disproving, by clear and
convincing evidence, a facially sufficient claim of self-defense immunity in a
criminal prosecution.”

This is obviously a very important change in criminal
cases involving self-defense claims.Before the amendment, criminal defendants in Florida who wished to
assert self-defense had the burden of proof.It was the defendant that had to convince the jury that their actions
were justified due to self-defense.After the amendment, the defendant only has to present a facially
sufficient claim of self-defense, a very low bar.The burden of proof now rests on the
prosecution to show that there was no justification for self-defense, and the
burden is by clear and convincing evidence, one step below beyond reasonable
doubt, but still a very significant hurdle.

The Court went on to address whether the amendment
applies only to cases going forward or retroactively to all existing criminal
cases.“Statutory amendments may take
one of three forms: substantive, which are usually applied prospectively, or
procedural or remedial, either of which may apply retroactively to pending
proceedings”, the Martin court explained.The court discussed that “[i]n the context of criminal cases
specifically, ‘substantive law is that which declares what acts are crimes and
prescribes the punishment therefor, while procedural law is that which provides
or regulates the steps by which one who violates a criminal statute is
punished.’”

Finally, the court noted that “[i]n Florida, statutory
changes to the burden of proof—the change at issue here—are invariably deemed
procedural in nature for purposes of retroactive application.”Therefore, “[s]ubsection (4) now ascribes to
the State what had, under common law precedent, been the defendant's burden of
proof. That is not a substantive change. Neither the substantive rights of a
successful claim of immunity nor the necessary elements of proof to establish a
claim of immunity were altered by the June 9, 2017, amendment.”Thus, the amended standard of proof in self-defense
cases applies not only to future cases, but also to existing cases and even
those cases under appeal.The case is
Martin v. State, Case No. 2D16-4468, (Fla. Dist. Ct. App., 2nd
District, May 4, 2018).

Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney
publishes his first article in his series of Instructional Articles, the first
one on recent changes to Florida’s self-defense laws

In his first article in his
instructional series, veteran criminal defense attorney Patrick Michael Megaro
comments on Martin v. State, an appellate decision from the Second District
Court of Appeal of Florida, dealing with recent changes to Florida’s self
defense laws.

Florida legislature’s amendment to section
776.032 marks an important shift in self defense laws in the state of
Florida.As the Martin court explained
“[t]he Florida Legislature's amendment to section 776.032 added the following
provision: (4) In a criminal prosecution, once a prima facie claim of self defense
immunity from criminal prosecution has been raised by the defendant at a
pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence
is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution
provided in subsection (1).”The Martin
court went on to explain that “as it now stands, the State bears the burden of
disproving, by clear and convincing evidence, a facially sufficient claim of
self-defense immunity in a criminal prosecution.”

This is obviously a very important
change in criminal cases involving self defense claims.Before the amendment, criminal defendants in
Florida who wished to assert self defense had the burden of proof.It was the defendant that had to convince the
jury that their actions were justified due to self defense.After the amendment, the defendant only has
to present a facially sufficient claim of self defense, a very low bar.The burden of proof now rests on the
prosecution to show that there was no justification for self defense, and the
burden is by clear and convincing evidence, one step below beyond reasonable
doubt, but still a very significant hurdle.

Martin case went on to address
whether the amendment applies only to cases going forward or retroactively to
all existing criminal cases.“Statutory
amendments may take one of three forms: substantive, which are usually applied
prospectively, or procedural or remedial, either of which may apply
retroactively to pending proceedings”, the Martin court explained.The court discussed that “[i]n the context of
criminal cases specifically, ‘substantive law is that which declares what acts
are crimes and prescribes the punishment therefor, while procedural law is that
which provides or regulates the steps by which one who violates a criminal
statute is punished.’”

The Martin court noted that “[i]n Florida, statutory changes to
the burden of proof—the change at issue here—are invariably deemed procedural
in nature for purposes of retroactive application.”Therefore, “[s]ubsection (4) now ascribes to
the State what had, under common law precedent, been the defendant's burden of
proof. That is not a substantive change. Neither the substantive rights of a
successful claim of immunity nor the necessary elements of proof to establish a
claim of immunity were altered by the June 9, 2017, amendment.”Thus, the amended standard of proof in self
defense cases applies not only to future cases, but also to existing cases and
even those cases under appeal.The case
is Martin v. State, Case No. 2D16-4468, (Fla. Dist. Ct. App., 2nd
District, May 4, 2018), available at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5709431534236501779&q=martin+v+state+&hl=en&as_sdt=4,10&as_ylo=2017.

As a public service, Criminal Lawyer Patrick Megaro sets up “The Megaro Criminal
Law Library” with all his articles and videos

Patrick Megaro, a respected Criminal Lawyer
based in Orlando, Florida, announced today that “The Megaro Criminal Law Library”
is now available online. The library is a public service and contains all of
Mr. Megaro’s Criminal law articles and videos. In addition, there is a “search”
feature that allows users to search the videos and articles by keyword.

Mr. Megaro explains that he started out with
a Blog with his written articles and commentary, but eventually, “with the
growth of the content, it became too unwieldy and difficult to search. I thus
decided to organize all of the information more efficiently, and use an index
service so that users can search the Library by keyword.”

Mr. Megaro is providing all this information
as a public service, free of charge. “I have focused on this area of law for more
than 20 years, and at this stage in my life and experience, I would like to
share with the public, law students, and my peers all the knowledge I have
acquired. I sincerely hope that some of my esteemed colleagues in the
profession will find the materials useful for their own law practice.”

The Library is organized by different
sections, Videos, Articles, News and an Archive. The most recent featured
article of Mr. Megaro is about “How to Preserve Error At Trial in
Florida: An Appellate Lawyer’s Practice Tips (PART 1).”
In that article, Mr. Megaro addresses the problem when an error at trial is not
properly preserved for appeal. In legalese, that is something like “This issue before us was not properly preserved for
appellate review and is therefore not now cognizable. Affirmed.”Mr. Megaro explains that “appellate lawyers
cringe when we see these words written, especially in our own case
decisions. This means that no matter how brilliant the trial attorney
was, they did not make a specific, timely objection at the trial level, which
has effectively waived their client’s right to appeal that issue.” The
law requires that any error during trial be properly preserved. Thus, a lawyer
must be specific with the objection so as to inform the trial court of the
perceived error.” State v. Garza, 118 So.3d 856 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).
It means that the attorney must spell out WHY he or she objects (be it in a
motion, a post-hearing memorandum of law, a written notice of objection, or an
argument on the record at the appropriate time why something is legally
erroneous). Further, such objection must be SPECIFIC. Finally, the objection
must be TIMELY and CONTEMPORANEOUS. This means that the attorney must
immediately object when something is coming into evidence – sometimes before
and after.

Orange
County, California (September 2018) – On September 10, 2018, The Orange County
Register published a detailed analysis of the case of Corvain Cooper, whose
only hope to ever get released from prison is a clemency grant by President
Trump or a review by the U.S. Supreme Court. While such dire prospects would
indicate that the most violent crimes are involved, Cooper’s offenses are non-violent
marijuana offenses. But he had two prior offenses, which resulted in the
application of the “three strikes law.”

The
Orange County Register article was researched and written by journalist Brooke
Edwards Staggs, who is a general assignment reporter with a focus on covering
the politics, business, health and culture of cannabis. For this article,
Staggs interviewed the mother of Corvain Cooper, other family members, and
Cooper’s attorney, Orlando-based Criminal Defense Lawyer Patrick Megaro. Patrick Megaro has represented Cooper pro bono
since 2014. Megaro has ceaselessly pursued justice for Cooper, but now it is
down to two options – President Trump or the U.S. Supreme Court.

The article quotes
Megaro: “I’m just hoping that somebody, somewhere — whether that’s in the White
House or across the street at the Supreme Court — sees that this particular
sentence is complete madness.”

The article then
summarizes the appeals that Patrick Megaro has initiated on Cooper’s behalf:

“Megaro appealed
Cooper’s case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but in 2016 the justices declined to
hear it. Still, two decisions made by California voters while Cooper has been
in prison serve to give Megaro and Cooper hope. First, in 2014, voters approved
Proposition 47, reducing many drug crimes to misdemeanors. Under that new law,
Cooper’s conviction for possession of cough syrup with codeine was downgraded
from a felony to a misdemeanor. Then, in November 2016, voters approved
Proposition 64. In addition to legalizing the recreational use of cannabis, the
measure reduced or eliminated nearly every marijuana-related crime.
And in May 2017, Cooper’s felony marijuana charge from 2009 was reduced to a
misdemeanor. Earlier this year, Megaro went back to federal appeals court in
North Carolina and explained that Cooper’s two prior felonies were no longer
strikes. But they refused to reconsider his sentence. In July, Megaro filed a
new petition with the Supreme Court. And, last month, they got one
bit of potentially encouraging news, when Solicitor General Noel Francisco
requested more time to submit the government’s response to Cooper’s petition. … As they wait to hear back from the
Supreme Court, Megaro is also appealing Cooper’s case to the White House — for
the second time.”

It all began when Corvain Cooper was charged
in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
with conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 1,000
kilograms or more of marijuana, and conspiracy to commit money laundering and
structuring transactions. A special information was also filed against Cooper,
alleging two prior felony convictions for possession of drugs (one for
marijuana, one for codeine cough syrup) in the California state courts. The
filing triggered a mandatory life sentence without parole.The reason for the unusually harsh sentence
is the so-called “Three Strikes” law.These laws require
a person guilty of committing a drug felony and
two other previous drug felony convictions to serve a mandatory life
sentence in prison.The “Three
Strikes” law significantly increases the prison
sentences of persons convicted of a felony who
have been previously convicted of two or more violent crimes or drug felonies,
and limits the ability of these offenders to receive a punishment other than
a life sentence.

Background

The underlying
court cases are United States v. Cooper, 624 Fed.Appx. 819 (4th Cir. 2015), and
United States v. Cooper, 714 Fed.Appx. 259 (4th Cir. 2018). According to a
press release of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, “from
in or about 2004 through January 2013, Cooper was involved in a drug conspiracy
that trafficked marijuana from California to the Charlotte area. Court records
show that Cooper was charged with conspiracy to distribute and to possess with
intent to distribute at least one thousand kilograms of marijuana as well as
money laundering conspiracy and structuring financial transactions through
banking institutions to avoid IRS reporting requirements. Cooper, along with
two co-defendants, Evelyn LaChapelle and Natalia Wade, were convicted of all
charges on October 18, 2013, following a three-day trial.” He was sentenced to
life in prison on June 18, 2014. See https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdnc/pr/california-drug-trafficker-sentenced-life-prison-drug-conspiracy-and-related-charges